Re: [Fwd: Re: Spamassasin over RBL, was Re: rblsmtpd -t?]
> On Wed, May 08, 2002 at 10:56:12PM +0200, Emile van Bergen wrote:
> > > what has size got to do with it?
> >
> > Because the distinction between a customer and an ISP is not clear.
> > [...]
>
> that was a tautology. it only matters if you think size is relevant.
>
> it doesn't matter in the slightest whether an ISP's customer is another
> ISP or not.
Using your mentality, then everything always gets escalated to the highest
point (since everyone below the top-most ISP is essentially a customer).
So... essentially, the highest point is nearly always the network
provider... UUnet, Level3, MCIWorldcom... whomever owns the actual
physical cable.
So, continuing on that, you will have the 4 or 5 big physical network
operators, each being responsible for all their downstream customers. An
RBL will essentially hold each of these 4 or 5 physical network operators
responsible for any spam that originates with their network.
How impossible is that? You would essentially making the big 5 operators
Gods of Email... controlling everything.
And you would then have the situation that all the customers of, for
example, UUnet, would not use any RBL because if they did, and that RBL
decided that UUnet was responsible for spam, then they themselves would be
blocked (just like many Asian ISPs do not use RBLs because many RBLs just
block all mail from Asia, so they would in essense be blocking
themselves).
> > Qwest is an ISP. Is it responsible for mail sent from their ISP
> > customers?
>
> yes. absolutely. without exception. they are responsible for all mail
> sent by their customers.
Read above, and you will see what will happen from that.
> > Perhaps they should be. Then, would you say, if a large percentage of
> > their customer ISPs are spamha?ser (plural for spamhaus), should we
> > start blocking all mail from Qwest?
>
> yes. if a significant amount of spam is coming out of qwest and they
> are doing little or nothing to stop it then they should be black-listed.
Read above, and you will see what will happen from that... if you hold the
large providers responsible for all their customers email, the end result
is that no users will use the RBL for fear that their own network provider
will be blacklisted by the RBL.
> > At which percentage? How can we measure that? Using spam messages vs.
> > total output perhaps? That sounds remarkably like what Spamcop's
> > doing. So which criteria would *you* choose? You seem avoiding that
> > question.
>
> at no percentage. it's about quantity of spam received versus their
> willingness and/or ability to do something about their spammer customers
> - as judged by competent people with several years experience in
> anti-spam activities.
Ah ha... foot in mouth again.
A small ISP with, for example, 500 customers, will find it very easy to
shut down the account of a spammer.
Perhaps you can explain how Hotmail, or any number of large freemail
service providers, can do the same just as easily?
If you agree that it is harder for large providers to act just as fast as
a small provider, then you will see that there IS a difference between the
way a small and large provider act regarding complaints and spam. So that,
by itself, proves that your logic of "size and mail volume does not
matter" is immediately flawed and incorrect.
> technological decisions and judgements should be made by those who are
> competent to make them, not by democratic processes or by giving equal
> weight to the opinions of experts and the ignorant/stupid.
Then you think the US democratic process and people, whereby all are given
a vote and have the ability to shape the outcome, is stupid. Are you
American?
> > Hence my question. Apparently you see a big and fundamental difference
> > between an ISP, who would be allowed to do direct to MX SMTP, and a
> > customer, who would not be allowed to do direct to MX SMTP.
>
> no, stop putting bullshit words in my mouth.
>
> i see a fundamental difference between dynamic IP address and static IP
> addresses.
All your focus seems to go on dynamic IPs... yet you fail to see that
those on static IPs will probably have higher bandwidth, and hence can do
far more damage than any user on dynamic IPs.
> > > are you being genuinely stupid or is this a deliberate attempt to
put
> > > straw-man words in my mouth?
> >
> > Just continue assuming I'm stupid. That's fine with me, if that helps.
>
> you're doing a damn good job of proving that you are stupid.
> > Of course not. But now I understand. You were basically assuming that
> > everyone agrees that
> >
> > 1. ISP is equivalent to static IPs, and
> > 2. Customer is equivalent to dynamic IP.
>
> stop putting words in my mouth. especially stop putting cretinous words
> in my mouth.
But thats the way other people see your standpoint... ISP = static IP and
allowed to send direct-to-mx mail, Customer = dynamic IP and forced to use
upstream's mail servers.
Perhaps if people are not seeing your point of view... then it is your
problem and not everyone elses?
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-isp-request@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Reply to: